Fox condemns early review of leaked 'Wolverine'

The following statement just arrived in our mailbox direct from 20th Century Fox:

"We've just been made aware that Roger Friedman, a freelance columnist who writes Fox 411 on Foxnews.com - an entirely separate company from 20th Century Fox -- watched on the internet and reviewed a stolen and unfinished version of X-Men Orgins: Wolverine. This behavior is reprehensible and we condemn this act categorically -- whether the review is good or bad."

Okay. That's a start. The big question that I've been discussing with other webmasters all afternoon is just how far Fox is going to follow this. I know that Fox News and 20th Century Fox are technically separate companies, but they're both under the News Corp. banner, meaning everyone eventually answers to Rupert Murdoch.

It is my sincere belief that there is only one course of action for Fox News and 20th Century Fox to take here. It's clear. It's simple. And it puts the matter to bed.

Fire Roger Friedman.

[more after the jump]

Don't punish him. Don't sanction him. Fire him. Cut all corporate ties to him. Permanently. He may have taken the article down, but you can still easily read it via Google caching.

I believe that if any webmaster at any fansite had reviewed it, the results would have involved legal action. I think Fox was very clear about that, and they've certainly been litigious about their materials in the past in much less extreme circumstances. But since we not only refused to review it but also to publish any reactions to it from anyone else, and since the same thing happened at Ain't It Cool and CHUD and at most of the other major geek sites, Fox is in an awkward position here. We all respected the law. We all chose to do the right thing.

And your own employee screwed you. And more than that... he practically cackled about doing it. He not only talked about downloading "Wolverine," he went on to advise people how to download the top ten films at the box-office this week, and mentioned that he planned to watch "I Love You, Man" at home tonight to avoid the rain.

This is criminal. It's blatantly criminal, and it's the sort of behavior that would be punished if it was anyone else.

Fire Roger Friedman.

Fox's statement suggests that they had no part in Friedman's decision to publish, which refutes the theory that this was spin control. And you know what? I believe that. I think if Fox really had wanted to use Friedman for spin control, they would have flown him to LA and shown him the finished film with all the reshoots in place and the FX finished. And that would have been fine. It's their film. They can show it to whoever they want. No one could have said a word.

But Friedman crossed a line, a LEGAL line, and he bragged about doing it after Fox had said earlier this week that they will prosecute anyone who downloads or distributes the movie.

Los Angeles, Calif., April 3, 2009 -- "Roger Friedman's views in no way reflect the views of News Corporation. We, along with 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, have been a consistent leader in the fight against piracy and have zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy. Once we learned of Roger Friedman's post we asked Fox News to remove it, which they did immediately."

Your former site, AICN, rose to fame by reviewing early cuts of films and then reviewing them online. Every major studio often complained that you guys would sneak into test screenings and then review the movies. Studios complained that the films you were reviewing were works in progress and not ready to be reviewed. A pretty honest complaint.

What about Friedman upsets you? That he downloaded a movie online, or that he reviewed a version of the film that was not complete?

iwasakabukiman....my point is that, Friedman wrote a negative review of a movie that was not completed and posted it online. Would Fox fire him if the review was great? Would Fox fire him if he saw the movie and did not review it? Seems to me that the issue is that he wrote a negative review of a movie that was not complete and that the studio was not ready to show to critics. l

Waynegrow, it's a fair question. The short answer is that I never stole anything or committed an illegal act. I may not have made the studios happy, but I didn't work for them, and I still don't. Roger Friedman, working for News Corp, not only broke the law, but then crowed about it in public. What he did would have gotten anyone else online immediately prosecuted, and if Fox expects to ever deal with any of us again on anything like a professional level, they have one choice: fire Friedman. It's the only right thing to do.

I guess my question is not one of what is legal and what is not legal then. I guess the question is one for Drew, that is, what bothers you about Friedman? Drew, you are a writer, what would bother you more, somebody downloading an episode that you wrote of MASTERS OF HORROR illegally or somebody writing a review of your episode of PROLIFE (which I loved) before it was done.

I guess my question is not one of legality...but what is fair to the artist....downloading or writing a review of a film that is not complete....and what is a more offensive to the creators of said work.

Waynegrow, I think I explained what bothers me. If any other webmaster had written a piece about how they downloaded "Wolverine" illegally and then reviewed the movie, Fox would go after them with every lawyer they employ. They cannot allow Friedman to do the same. They just can't. If they do, they can never go after anyone else again, because we can just point at Friedman, employed by Fox, as a precedent. My episodes of "Masters" were both illegally downloaded and traded to a remarkable degree. I'm sure I lost many many many dollars in residuals as a result. I don't spend a lot of time bitching about it because it won't change anything. This is NOT about the larger issue of piracy or copyright. This is about Friedman's actions and Fox's reaction... whatever it ends up being.

so your issue is not that the movie was viewed illegaly, that a review was posted off of illegal viewing, and reviewed off an early cut.......but that since it is a fox movie and a fox employee did this he should be fired. Your issue is not with the illegal downloading, or the reviewing of a work in progress....but that that fox wont eat one of their own.....I guess I ask you this, as a writer/journalist, what is more important to protest, illegal downloads, reviews of incompleted work.....or new corp double standards?

ive got no doubt fox would crucify sites like hitfix, AICN, /film etc, if they even hinted at posting a Wolverine workprint review, but studio double standards in these matters are hardly surprising. personally i don't think this guy deserves to lose his job over it anyways. sure - he showed very bad judgment in running it, but calling for his head seems a tad over the top IMO. (that said - if i was that Fantastic Four projectionist who lost his job a few years back, id be pretty damn pissed if this guy gets away with just a slap on the wrist)

I think it is funny how this has your panties all tied up in a knot, but you cannot understand why people would go bug poop insane over a picture of the Looney Tune Characters displayed in an image depicting the last supper. It is all relative man.

Is everyone taking crazy pills or something? Fox news and 20th century might be under the same huge corporate umbrella, but it still might take a 72 hours to fire the guy... and if for some strange reason 20th century isn't able to get him fired, im sure they'll be pissed.... the "hypocrite" argument is just absurd.

I mean, here's there statement once again: â€œWeâ€™ve just been made aware that Roger Friedman, a freelance columnist who writes Fox 411 on Foxnews.com â€“ an entirely separate company from 20th Century Fox â€” watched on the internet and reviewed a stolen and unfinished version of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. This behavior is reprehensible and we condemn this act categorically â€” whether the review is good or bad.â€

i agree with googoogaa --- there is NO way 20th century fox had anything to do with this and to be honest in a corporation as big as fox, there is no way they have the control to fire a freelance writer that works for fox news. YES he should be fired but even if he isnt, i A) will still see the movie in the theaters and B) will still hate fox news

Call me crazy but the level of hysteria this has engendered is mind numbing. I'm not saying Drew doesn't have a point of a kind but this all comes across like some kind of Taliban style bloodlust.

I do believe the statement about Friedman's freelance contributions being outside of the corporate auspices but for all the accusations tossed at the guy there is precious little acknowledgement of the gray area that online movie journos are trafficking here when it comes to early coverage of "unfinished work" - something that many writers built their reputations doing. The semantics of how one acquired their knowledge/experience of the movie in question seems kind of week given the evolution of technology since this all started.

I don't advocate what Friedman did for a second and I'm pretty sure that professional sanctions alone would have crippled any regular access for Friedman to continue to do his job - regardless if he's allowed to keep it. This is some incredibly insular hand wringing though and the drumbeat from a few sources against Friedman is a bit disconcerting from my point of view as it feel precisely like the same kind of heat applied to the people plying their trade 10 years now that the internet has established its legitimacy.

I'm not sure what the right thing is here but the thunderous way this is being portrayed in black and white terms feels disproportionate. Ironic though that the way this turned out is creating enough trade for the outlets in question without actual reviews from the principals. There is too much parsing going on relative to past behavior in my opinion though - regardless of how this turns out.

Sorry Drew, you are just way off base here. While you get a lifetime pass from me due to having John Carpenter direct 2 of your screenplays, I just don't see why you think Roger should get fired. All he did was point out how "easy" it was to find this stuff online. So you say - what if Harry Knowles did the same thing - well there's not much Fox could do except ban him from a few screenings - it's not like they would shut down AICN. The true culprits are the people who leaked it, not the ones who found it. I'm sure that in your Morning Read, you link to a lot of youtube files that may be of copyrighted works where the writer is not getting paid. Roger's a good writer, I don't always agree with his tastes in movies, but he comes up with scoops now and then. But to have him fired? Way over the top. What online journalist HASN'T downloaded a movie illegally before (except for maybe Roger Ebert). I think you are taking out your frustration on all things "Fox". It's OK if you don't like Fox News - but this isn't the best way to get revenge.....